ÆäÀÌÁö À̹ÌÁö
PDF
ePub

Mr. WALKER. That we can only estimate, because we have no figures as to shoddy except the figures given here-I do not recall them in 1914.

Mr. SIMS. What is it, something over 180,000,000 pounds?

Mr. WALKER. One hundred and eighty-five million or one hundred and eighty-six million.

Mr. SIMS. Let us suppose it is 200,000,000 pounds and virgin wool 600,000,000 pounds; there are 600,000,000 pounds of wool and 200,000,000 pounds

Mr. FRENCH. No; it is approximately 100,000,000.

Mr. SIMS. Well, that is all the better; if there are 600,000,000 pounds of virgin wool sold in the United States and less than 100,000,000 pounds of shoddy. If we are going to legislate in relation to a product, why not legislate for that which goes into use in a proportion of 6 to 1 or more than 6 to 1? Why be so tender about this 185,000,000 pounds and so inconsiderate of the 600,000,000 pounds? Mr. WALKER. I can not understand that at all. If you will permit me, I would like to read this, which is from a statement by Mr. Haskins. It appeared in the Daily News Record, September 8, 1919, credited to Charles M. Haskins, secretary of the National Association of Waste Material Dealers. This is just a portion of the article. [Reading:]

For years the clothing trade

This is the secretary of the rag pickers' association, the men who gather up this waste material, who says this:

For years the clothing trade have, in a sense, been taking money under false pretenses, in that they have emphasized the fact by advertising and other methods that their goods were all wool. Their statements were true enough even though 50 per cent of their wool goods might have been wool shoddy. But the average person has bought such goods with the belief that all wool meant virgin wool. Now, the cat is out of the bag. Certainly all the clothing manufacturers can not claim they are making nothing but virgin wool fabrics, because careful students of the subject have developed the fact that all the virgin wool in the world only allows 14 ounces a year to each man, woman, and child living outside of the Tropics.

There is a statement that you might be interested in, in connection with the proportion of virgin wool and shoddy.

Mr. MERRITT. It does not say anything about the proportion. Mr. WALKER. It is admitted that it takes 12 pounds of wool for each person in the United States for a year.

Mr. MERRITT. That it takes that much or that there is that much? Mr. WALKER. It takes about 12 pounds for the year for a person.

I think it takes 16 pounds, does it not, to outfit a soldier?

Mr. CLARK. More than that for the soldier, to replace his uniform each year.

Mr. WALKER. I mean for the full equipment; 16 pounds of grease Wool?

Mr. CLARK. No; it is nearly 21 pounds.

Mr. JONES. Then there must be shoddy in the clothes that people wear?

Mr. WALKER. There must be.

Mr. JONES. Then why not tell them about it?

Mr. WALKER. That reminds me of the argument that was made. in regard to oleomargarine.

Mr. SIMS. What is the difference between the pure-food law and this fabric law?

Mr. WALKER. I see none, because I know that the oleomargarine people used to argue actually that the fat from the inside of the cow, which was used in oleomargarine, was not different from the fat that came out of the cow through the udder; that they were both animal fat.

The CHAIRMAN. Section 9 of the French bill, in detailing the fabrics, under section 20, "Marks on the fabric," says:

[blocks in formation]

Is that a percentage based on weight or quantity?
Mr. WALKER. On weight, I should say.

The CHAIRMAN. Ought not that section to state whether it is weight or quantity?

Mr. WALKER. Perhaps that would be better. I think the cloths are all handled by weight. We speak of a cloth weighing so many ounces to the yard, and so many pounds to the bolt. They are spoken of nearly always by weight; and scoured wool would be determined nearly always by the weight. I think that refers to weight alone instead of quantity. You would have no way of estimating the quantity except by weight.

The CHAIRMAN. I called your attention to that because I did not know whether it was quantity or weight.

Mr. WALKER. You could not determine it by quantity.

The CHAIRMAN. Are there any other questions? If not, we are obliged to Mr. Walker.

Mr. CLARK. Mr. Chairman, Mr. Goodall is here and we would like the committee to hear him.

The CHAIRMAN. Very well.

STATEMENT OF HON. LOUIS B. GOODALL, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF MAINE.

Mr. GOODALL. I did not expect to appear before the committee to-day. I have not prepared anything to say, only in a general way. I want to say, in my opinion, that this bill is entirely impractical. It can not be worked out. We start in on taking the stamping of the fabric. If you take a lightweight fabric and stamp that on the back, the stamp will show through.

Take light palm beach goods, and the stamp will show through that. That is one thing that is against it.

Then, another thing, talking about wear, there is one point that I do not think has been brought up here about virgin wool. I have had wool offered to me by wool dealers which, if you take it up in the usual way and test it, you could pull it apart almost as easily as tissue paper. That is caused by the fact that at a certain season of the year sheep have not had proper feeding or proper water; if you take the wool fiber and examine it under a microscope, if that sheep has not been properly fed, or there has been lack of water, you can see where it dwindles down to a very fine fiber. That fiber does not carry through at a uniform size and strength. Now, if that kind of wool is worked into a garment, it makes a very weak one; and if it was, any manufacturer could honestly brand that as virgin wool, and still the cloth would be very poor wearing cloth.

Now, of course, there are all kinds of virgin wools, the same as there are all kinds of shoddies. There are certain very short virgin wools. If made into a fabric, that fabric would wear much less than a fabric made of long virgin wool with 25 or 30 per cent of good reworked wool in it. There is a certain kind of wool in the trade known as vat wool. It is where they take the sheepskins and soak them in lime water and then scrape off the wool-known as pulled wool in the trade-and there is more or less of the short wool that floats on top in the vat, and they skim that off. It is very, very short, probably not more than three-eighths or one-half inch long. A manufacturer could make that into a cloth and stamp it, honestly, "virgin wool," and it would not be worth a continental to wear. So, for that reason, my opinion is that this stamping "virgin wool" does not mean anything to the consumer. In my opinion the best way for a consumer to know the value of the cloth he is buying is from the price that he pays for a suit of clothes. You may go into a clothing store and see two suits, one marked $50 and another $30; a man of intelligence would know that a suit for $30 must be largely made of shoddy, whereas the $50 suit is probably made of good, new, virgin wool.

There is another way, if a person understands it of course they all do not-if a man wants to be sure of getting a suit of clothes of all virgin wool, let him buy a worsted suit. It is impossible to work shoddy into worsted. The only way that worsted is adulterated is by cotton threads in the cloth, or what we call a cotton back worsted, and anybody, without being an expert, can distinguish those cotton threads over the wool threads. I always buy worsted clothes when I buy a suit. I am sure, then, that I am getting an all virgin wool suit of clothes, and one which will hold its shape and wear better than a wool suit. But I have to pay for them.

Now, there is another thing that occurs to me, that if this law is passed this country will be flooded by goods from European manufacturers which would be made with a good deal of shoddy in them, say, 25, 30, or even 40 per cent of the best kind of shoddy-I mean the long fiber shoddy-with long virgin wool; and when those goods landed in this country there is not any expert on the top of the earth who can examine that cloth and tell whether it is all virgin wool, or partly reworked wool; when it has been manufactured and put into a fulling mill, and treated with soap, with the barbs of the wool broken, there is no one who can tell, absolutely. The result would be that foreign manufacturers would flood this country with those goods I have mentioned, stamped "virgin wool," and our manufacturers of medium goods would not have any chance here.

It is a well-known fact that most of the foreign manufacturers, when it comes to trying to beat the customhouse by undervaluations and falsely branding goods or giving false qualities are notorious, and they would not hesitate a minute to brand mixed goods as "virgin wool." A dishonest manufacturer in this country would do the same thing, where the honest manufacturer would stamp his goods properly. It is my opinion that it would not help the public a great deal to stamp goods. The price is the best way to tell. There is such competition in selling goods, or in retailing goods, that the price generally tells the quality of the goods the man is buying. Mr. SIMS. You do not think that it would hurt the public to pass this bill?

Mr. GOODALL. I do not think it would do them any good.
Mr. SIMS. You do not think it would hurt them?

Mr. GOODALL. Yes; because, as I say, you can make up a fabric of virgin wool of very short length, and a manufacturer can honestly brand that as virgin wool, and yet it would not wear nearly as well as a piece of goods made from a long-fiber wool, sound and strong, two-thirds of that kind of wool and one-third of good, long, reworked wool.

Mr. SIMS. The woolen manufacturers are prosperous, are they not? Mr. GOODALL. Every manufacturer that I know anything of in this country is prosperous.

Mr. SIMS. The preponderance of the evidence that we have had before us is that the sheep industry in the United States is a declining industry, and that possibly extinction confronts it. Now, if these manufacturers are prospering, are doing well, and the woolgrowers all claim that this bill would help them some, and if it would not hurt the manufacturers, why should we not respond to their desires a little?

Mr. GOODALL. I suppose you understand that the raising of sheep east of the Mississippi River is not profitable, because the land is more profitable to raise other things?

Mr. SIMS. We have had evidence here that the wool industry is a declining industry, and it is said that something must be done.

Mr. GOODALL. Because it is more profitable to use that land for other purposes.

Mr. SIMS. Those manufacturers of wool, will they have wool from some source?

Mr. GOODALL. Oh, certainly.

Mr. SIMS. Would you not prefer to have the manufacturers have the benefit of some protection?

Mr. GOODALL. Oh, certainly; absolutely.

Mr. SIMS. I say, so far as you buy your supplies in this country? Mr. GOODALL. I believe that the woolgrowers of this country should be amply protected by a tariff to keep out foreign competition.

Mr. SIMS. That is not the trouble with them. They suffer from no competition now. They want to be protected against imposition and the temptation of selling shoddy for the same price you sell virgin wool for; and they are asking this, and they ought to know what is to their interest, and you say this can not hurt the public and it will not hurt the manufacturers. Why close up our hearts against this demand or request of the woolgrowers, who from one end to the other say they have a declining industry and an unprofita ble one?

Mr. GOODALL. I will tell you, which is a fact, there is not wool enough raised in the country to-day to supply the demand for allwool goods and the price of wool, like other commodities, is regulated by supply and demand.

Mr. SIMs. That is true, and we want to increase the supply of home-grown wool; and these wool growers say this will help them; and it does not hurt the public, and does not hurt the manufacturers, and they are both satisfied. Why not do this, which is all that they ask us to do now?

Mr. GOODALL. I can tell you whom it will hurt. It will be the

consumers.

177735-20- -25

Mr. SIMS. The consumers, of course, we never think of.
Mr. GOODALL. We all know the conditions to-day.

Mr. SIMS. I know how it is in freight rates. They say that when ever you can pass the freight on to the consumer of the article, shoddy or whatever it may be, it does not make any difference to him. When you can pass it on to the consumer, it is only a little increase for getting first hand wool. The public is the one that is victimized by the shoddy. This is a small thing to do and it does no harm to anybody, so they say, and why not give the consumer and the wool grower a little help?

Mr. GOODALL. This bill does not specify the length of wool, you will get in garments.

Mr. SIMS. That does not make any difference.

Mr. GOODALL. Yes; it makes all the difference, in my mind.

Mr. SIMS. It will not make any difference in the main, any more than it does now. It does not now; because you can not tell now, under present conditions.

Mr. GOODALL. They neither know the quality of the shoddy they are buying nor the quality of the virgin wool, and it will not change. the present conditions.

Mr. SIMS. Why, certainly.

Mr. GOODALL. Let me explain one thing

The CHAIRMAN. Let us have the explanation.

Mr. GOODALL. By using a very short virgin wool that will make a poor wearing fabric; when a consumer sees on that fabric a tag marked "virgin wool," he will take it for granted that that is made of long fiber, best quality of virgin wool, when it is not. It deceives the consumer. That is one reason why the bill is not proper, and why it is unjust to the consumer.

Mr. SIMS. Inasmuch as the American wool grower produces very little of that low grade wool, encouraging him wili perhaps increase the amount of good wool you manufacturers will have, so that you will not import so much of this low grade wool in order that it may put off on the consumer; do you not think so?

Mr. GOODALL. I would not think so.

Mr. SIMS. But I mean as a class they will not do that. There is no reason why they should. If the American production is sufficient for all the demands of the American manufacturers of goods of the higher grades or kinds, they will have to get the low grade somewhere else.

Mr. GOODALL. I do not think that it is practical, if this bill be put through, for the public to buy clothes with the knowledge of the real intrinsic qualities, by simply branding.

Mr. SIMS. When the quantity of this low-grade wool that is manufactured into fabrics that is worn by the average man is so small in quantity, in comparison with the vast number of shoddy fabrics, that they are victimized, how can it be to them an injury? You say some of them will buy low-grade virgin-wool fabrics, but you have no concern about the number of low-grade shoddy fabrics they are buying.

Mr. GOODALL. If you buy a suit to-day and pay a very low price, that is prima facie evidence that it is shoddy, and a low-grade shoddy,

too.

« ÀÌÀü°è¼Ó »